Geometriyani oʻqitishda interaktiv metodlardan foydalanish
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22646743Аннотация
Maqsad - 9-sinf geometriya darslarida interaktiv yondashuvlarning o‘quvchilarda fazoviy tasavvur, isbotlash
mantiqi va darsga jalb etilishiga ta’sirini aniqlashdir. Metodlar - tadqiqot uch bosqichli pedagogik tajriba asosida
tashkil etildi: aniqlovchi pretest, shakllantiruvchi intervensiya va nazorat posttest. Tajribada tajriba va nazorat guruhlari
taqqoslandi, guruhlar tarkibi 21,0 %, 39,0 % va 40,0 % nisbatlarda muvozanatli saqlandi. O‘lchov vositasining barqarorligi
Cronbach α bilan tekshirildi va natija 0,873 darajada qayd etildi. Guruhlararo boshlang‘ich tenglik t = 0,16 va
p = 0,873 ko‘rsatkichlari bilan tasdiqlandi, bu esa keyingi o‘zgarishlarni metodik ta’sir bilan bog‘lash uchun qulay asos
yaratdi. Natijalar - shakllantiruvchi bosqich davomida interaktiv topshiriqlar, juftlikda ishlash, muammoli savollar va
chizmali izohlar o‘quvchilarning javob berish faolligini oshirdi, isbotni bosqichma-bosqich bayon qilishni yengillashtirdi
va mavzuga diqqatni barqaror ushlab turdi. Xulosa - interaktiv metodlar geometriya materialini mavhum qabul qilishni
kamaytirib, tushunchalarni
faol amaliy harakat orqali mustahkamlash imkonini beradi. Tadqiqotning ilmiy hissasi 9-sinf
uchun bosqichli dars qurilmasi, ishonchliligi tekshirilgan baholash yondashuvi va boshlang‘ich tenglikni nazorat qiluvchi
tahliliy tartibni tavsiflashda namoyon bo‘ldi.
Ключевые слова
dars kuzatuvi, fazoviy tasavvur, isbotlash malakasi, pedagogik tajriba, savol-javobli topshiriqlarБиблиографические ссылки
1. Freeman S., Eddy S. L., McDonough M., et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering,
and mathematics // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. - 2014. - Vol. 111, № 23. - P. 8410–8415. DOI:
10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
2. Hake R. R. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data
for introductory physics courses // American Journal of Physics. - 1998. - Vol. 66, № 1. - P. 64–74. DOI: 10.1119/1.18809.
3. Chi M. T. H., Wylie R. The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes // Educational
Psychologist. – 2014. - Vol. 49, № 4. - P. 219–243. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.
4. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research // Journal of Engineering Education. - 2004. - Vol. 93,
№ 3. - P. 223–231. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb.
5. Vygotsky L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. - Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1978. - 159 p.
6. NCTM. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. - Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
2000. - 402 p.
7. Polya G. How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. - Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1945. -288 p.
8. Hiebert J., Wearne D., Taber S., et al. Making Sense: Teaching and Learning Mathematics with Understanding //
Heinemann. - 1997. - 240 p.
9. Boaler J. Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages and
Innovative Teaching. – San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2016. – 320 p.
10. Bloom B. S. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive
Domain. – New York: David McKay, 1956. – 207 p.
11. Hmelo-Silver C. E. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? // Educational Psychology Review. –
2004. – Vol. 16, № 3. – P. 235–266. DOI: 10.1023/B.0000034022.16470.f3.
12. Theobald E. J., Hill M. J., Tran E., et al. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in
undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. -
2020. - Vol. 117, № 12. - P. 6476–6483. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1916903117.
13. Freeman S., Haak D., Wenderoth M. P. Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology //
CBE-Life Sciences Education. - 2011. - Vol. 10, № 2. - P. 175–186. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.10-08-0105.
14. Prince M. J., Felder R. M. Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases //
Journal of Engineering Education. - 2006. - Vol. 95, № 2. - P. 123–138. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb.
15. Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T., Smith K. A. Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works?
// Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. - 1998. - Vol. 30, № 4. - P. 26–35. DOI: 10.1080/00091389809602629.
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Copyright (c) 2026 «Maktabgacha va maktab ta’limi» jurnali
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
Как цитировать
Страницы
Цитирование